hey CM how r u man, take this to big boss thread let me prove him wrong on this one and asu can c he didn't even answer those questions about saddam and non of the 9/11 stuff and the only thing he keep saying over and over that its all lies but he can't prove it
Originally posted by davdah: I've looked at many of the links posted you are referencing concerning OBL, 9-11, pentagon, etc..
None of it is very conclusive. Even from my audience perspective I can counter most of what was claimed off the cuff. Has it escaped you that perhaps what they are selling may in fact be the doctored version?
Without being an expert on any of it I'm inclined to be skeptical of wild eyed rants of Gov. conspiracies and black bag ops.
I have not been talking to you about government conspiracy other than the Father/Son conspiracy to invade Iraq. My entire response and question to you Davdah has been about you constantly saying that OBL was the mastermind behind 911. You keep talking about government conspiracy theories.. I have not. Based on the factual information and undisputed facts thAT I have provided you ..... HOW can you continue to say that OBL and muslim terrorists were behind the Twin towers? The unbiased response is that we as citizens and residents of this country and the world DO NOT KNOW who was behind the planning and mastermind of 911.
Certainly, OBL does not appear to be an enemy of GWB or certain people in the government. Fact is that the Bin Laden family have fantastic connections at the utmost high end to be able to have been flown out of the usa when no one else was given authorization to fly immediately after 911. He is an alledged suspect, and there are no other suspects becuase they never bothered to look for any and then they destroyed all the evidence.
So I am just saying to you to stop clouding the issue here with talk about "government conspiracy" and respond to the straight talk.
the only people were allowed to fly at 9/11 in the united stated were OBL'S family and you can research for that and you will see that its true . why did they flew them outside of the country ? why?
Bush did know about the first attack before he went into the classroom. On Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore claims the Secret Service told him of the first attack and he decided to continue the event at the classroom. I suspect when he recounted the story as in that video clip, he got confused and mentioned about the video of the first plane crashing which of course he could not have seen at that time.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move - Douglas Adams
no thats not true that he got confused brit, how can he get confused about something like that? he just got caught lying bcoz the whole thing was a lie anyway. and if this was true how come he stayed at the class room reading stories with the kids if the country was under attack? and where was the airforce and the FBI and the army etc... at that time? 20 min was between the first and second attack !!!! where were they? and who was taking the video anyway? who was standing there taking that video at the same time when that happened? and how come they never questioned the two mosad agents who were at a hotel room taking video of the two towers 3 hours before the attack?
Originally posted by mike_2007: or really? and why the goverment can't prove them wrong then davdah? why did the goverment refuse to have discussion with those experts few times about 9/11 ? why did they change the official story 4 or 5 times then? why did bush waited at the school for 45 min after they informed him about the attack? http://www.oilempire.us/dictionary.html
Quite simply this. They don't need to prove to this group. If the group felt so strongly that what they allege is in fact true why haven't we seen supreme court cases?
The moment you capitulate to lawlessness you've lost your civility.
Posts: 8965 | Location: San Diego, or near by. | Registered: 06-08-2007
As I've said before, we may never know the true story of what happened that day. Some things are be destined to remain that way. Unless a smoking gun is found and made public, the conspiracy theories will remain just that, a theory.
That said, I do think the Flight 93 story isn't quite what it's been made out to be. Some of it doesn't make much sense. For example, they claimed the airplane was at full power diving to the ground. Well, it that were so, bits of it would have broken up before it hit the ground. Yet the only wreckage found was neatly inside the crater on the ground? More reminiscent of an airplane crashing without power.
I do like the commentary Micheal Moore made when showing him with the "deer caught in the headlights" look. "Say, maybe I should have spent more time at the office" LOL
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move - Douglas Adams
and who said they didn't try to? but the goverment and the media have covered it up and it was clear msg from bush when he said its either your with us or againts us , in another word its either you keep your mouth shut and support us and agree with us or we will cosider you a terrorist or anti american if you try to digg for the truth ,just like they did with michael moore. you know and i know that the media is in controle of everything in america and you know that they twist things up all the times for the favor of the goverment and this is why you didn't hear about it on tv
Brit, I think you got that wrong. If a plane is at open throttle near the ground it wouldn't come apart. After all, it is the standard configuration during take off? That is near the ground. Much of it would depend on the angle at impact as to how the plane would come apart.
The moment you capitulate to lawlessness you've lost your civility.
Posts: 8965 | Location: San Diego, or near by. | Registered: 06-08-2007
Think about it davdah. We're talking unskilled pilots here, not trained test pilots. Firstly, a descent from 30,000ft (6 miles up) with a nose down pitch accelerating 600kt+ and then making abrupt control movements is gonna increase the G-loading big time. So even small controlled movements could cause some extraneous parts to come adrift. Add in unskilled pilots and larger control excursions...I think more than just a little extra G-loading, probably beyond the design limits.
What's the first thing you're taught when entering an area of moderate to severe turbulence (if you found yourself in that situation)? Reduce power and hold wings level.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move - Douglas Adams
Here's a video of a crash that occurred in 1997 in Miami. The aircraft, a Cessna 210 was taking skydivers up when the airplane which was overloaded to the rear caused a flat spin to occur. Notice there's no wreckage around the site other than that of the plane itself? Although the altitude isn't that high, I'd say no more than 2000ft high, it would have been accelerating before it hit the ground:
Originally posted by Brit4064: Think about it davdah. We're talking unskilled pilots here, not trained test pilots. Firstly, a descent from 30,000ft (6 miles up) with a nose down pitch accelerating 600kt+ and then making abrupt control movements is gonna increase the G-loading big time. So even small controlled movements could cause some extraneous parts to come adrift. Add in unskilled pilots and larger control excursions...I think more than just a little extra G-loading, probably beyond the design limits.
What's the first thing you're taught when entering an area of moderate to severe turbulence (if you found yourself in that situation)? Reduce power and hold wings level.
Sure, maneuvering speed. I get it. But do we know the flight attitude and rate of descent? The fact it crashed the way it did due to passenger interference introduces more unknowns into the equation. Did it plunge from 30k straight down? I agree if that were the case and they tried to pull up it would have come apart like a kite in a hurricane. Without an eye witness all we can do is speculate since this was far from a normal crash.
The moment you capitulate to lawlessness you've lost your civility.
Posts: 8965 | Location: San Diego, or near by. | Registered: 06-08-2007
Originally posted by Brit4064: Here's a video of a crash that occurred in 1997 in Miami. The aircraft, a Cessna 210 was taking skydivers up when the airplane which was overloaded to the rear caused a flat spin to occur. Notice there's no wreckage around the site other than that of the plane itself? Although the altitude isn't that high, I'd say no more than 2000ft high, it would have been accelerating before it hit the ground:
Sure, maneuvering speed. I get it. But do we know the flight attitude and rate of descent? The fact it crashed the way it did due to passenger interference introduces more unknowns into the equation. Did it plunge from 30k straight down? I agree if that were the case and they tried to pull up it would have come apart like a kite in a hurricane. Without an eye witness all we can do is speculate since this was far from a normal crash.
And that's the whole point. We don't know other than the evidence left. It just doesn't quite add up for me. Maybe an F15 shot out the engines (using it's gun) so as to disable it but not cause a break up on descent and maybe allow the occupants to attempt a landing?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move - Douglas Adams
I doubt it was anything more that what was given. After all. Those who flew it went up in flames along with everyone else.
When the passengers stormed the cockpit they would have been grabbing at things in the process. One could very well have been the throttle. Pulled it all the way back and caused a stall. At this point the hijackers would have been in a mode of self preservation since this wasn't intended. They would have been trying to keep the plane flying all the while it was slowing and contending with the attackers.
While this is going on it would have been descending at a slow rate. It may also be plausible that at the moment of impact or just prior the throttle would have been thrown open to avoid an impact or caused by the impact itself.
The moment you capitulate to lawlessness you've lost your civility.
Posts: 8965 | Location: San Diego, or near by. | Registered: 06-08-2007
Sure, maneuvering speed. I get it. But do we know the flight attitude and rate of descent? The fact it crashed the way it did due to passenger interference introduces more unknowns into the equation. Did it plunge from 30k straight down? I agree if that were the case and they tried to pull up it would have come apart like a kite in a hurricane. Without an eye witness all we can do is speculate since this was far from a normal crash.
And that's the whole point. We don't know other than the evidence left. It just doesn't quite add up for me. Maybe an F15 shot out the engines (using it's gun) so as to disable it but not cause a break up on descent and maybe allow the occupants to attempt a landing?
It doesnt quite add up 4me either ... maybe it is just a ***** tail.
Maybe you "fly guys" Dav & Brit can explain the Wylie Coyote marks.
I've just watched the movie JFK again and you know that 911 will be much like the Kennedy assassination in that the real truth may never be known within our lifetime. I'd be really surprised if we on this board will know before we die. Maybe the next generation will?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move - Douglas Adams
Add to del.icio.us
let me prove him wrong on this one and asu can c he didn't even answer those questions about saddam and non of the 9/11 stuff and the only thing he keep saying over and over that its all lies but he can't prove it
